Gajendragadkar, J.

[1] The principal question which arises for our determination in this appeal at this stage relates to the quantum of the plaintiffs share in the properties in suit. This question has been raised in circumstances and on facts which make it necessary to examine some provisions of the Hindu law of adoption, and it is the consideration of these provisions which has made-this question both interesting and important. The-facts which give rise to the dispute are not many and most of them are true to the usual pattern of adoption cases.

[2] One Shrinivas had two sons, Ramchandra and Krishnaji. Krishnaji died in 1930. After his death Shrinivas and Ramchandra continued to live as members of an undivided Hindu family. In about December 1932 Krishnajis widow Sundrabai began to think of making an adoption to her deceased husband and it would appear that both Shrinivas And Ramchandra came to know about this intention of Sundrabai. Thereupon Shrinivas and Ramchandra effected a partition between themselves on 9-12-1932. This was followed by a registered deed of partition executed on 1G-12-1932. On this day itself Sundrabai adopted Ramkrishna, who is the plaintiff before us